A CONTROVERSIAL planning application cementing details surrounding the building of 85 new homes on the former Coors sports ground site on Anstey Road has received the ‘thumbs up’ from East Hampshire planners despite a conflict of policies set down in Alton’s neighbourhood plan.

And this, Alton Town Council argued, could leave East Hampshire District Council (EHDC) open to a legal challenge.

Nonetheless, while both the town council and The Alton Society expressed deep concern over the lack of on-site car parking and shared open space, the application appeared to “sail through” last Thursday’s meeting of EHDC’s planning committee with “no-one fighting Alton’s corner”.

There to represent The Alton Society, Rod Eckles added: “The vote was unanimous, with one abstention, and from the moment I arrived it was clear that no-one (on the committee) was going to challenge the recommendation to approve the application.”

This despite a robust representation by Alton town clerk Leah Coney, who had strongly argued the case for deferral, warning that due to its non-compliance with the Alton Neighbourhood Plan parking requirements, EHDC could expose itself to a legal challenge.

She had expressed Alton Town Council’s grave concern over the precedent that may be set if EHDC was to grant permission for an application that was in clear conflict with the town’s neighbourhood plan. In citing the detrimental impact it could have on any parish that had worked hard to produce a current or emerging neighbourhood plan, Mrs Coney drew attention to a recent statement by MP?Gavin Barwell, the Minister of State for Housing and Planning, that “where a planning application conflicts with a neighbourhood plan that has been brought into force, planning permission should not normally be granted”.

However, in this case, because outline permission for the Miller Homes site had been granted prior to Alton’s neighbourhood plan being adopted, officers argued that the parking provision had been designed on the basis of parking standards applied at that time and, as such, it would be “unreasonable to apply the newly adopted and much higher visitor parking standards of Alton’s neighbourhood plan.”

Alton Town Council argued that the quantum of parking had not been agreed at the outline stage and that where there was a conflict between policies the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 clearly states that “the conflict must be resolved in favour of the most recent document” which, in this case, would be Alton’s neighbourhood plan.

Due to this conflict of interest, Mrs Coney urged EHDC to defer making a decision in order to obtain legal advice, adding: “If neighbourhood plan policies are to prevail then this application would be refused in its current form as contrary to policy.”

And she added: “Without clear legal guidance any decision made this evening could expose the district council to legal challenge, which is something we would rather avoid.”

Bearing in mind the lack of on-site open space, Mrs Coney had opened her presentation by requesting that if members were minded to give consent to this application if should be ‘Grampian’ conditioned to include the installation, prior to completion of on-site works, of a pedestrian crossing on Anstey Road, to ensure safe passage for families to access the nearest play area at Anstey Park.

Like the town council, The Alton Society was said to be “extremely disappointed” that earlier concerns regarding the details of the Miller Homes application had not been properly addressed. Three points were cited: firstly, the proposed layout which, despite minor changes to the frontage, still showed “buildings hard up against Anstey Road and well forward of the existing building line, unlike the scheme shown at the original public consultation and indeed Shipley Close opposite”.

Furthermore, in the opinion of The Alton Society, the layout showed “scant regard” for the impact on adjacent listed buildings and on the Anstey conservation area, paying no heed to the provisions of the Alton Town Design Statement.

Secondly, The Alton Society was horrified by “a total absence of any shared open space” that would be reasonably expected in a scheme of this size, pointing out that the children’s play area in Anstey Park will be half a mile from the southern end of the site.

In addition, there were only 19 on-site visitor parking spaces shown which fell well short of neighbourhood plan policy for one space per two dwellings – a policy developed in recognition of the town’s poor bus service, and to ensure that parking provision on new sites is sufficient.

Mr Eckles told planners: “Quite apart from the chaos and neighbour disputes that would ensue – made even worse by the predominance of the tandem, end-to end parking that’s proposed – we believe that not enforcing these requirements would set a dangerous precedent for the future, and seriously undermine the neighbourhood plan.”

In urging the committee to “reject the application in its current form”, Mr Eckles suggested that given the town’s need for smaller dwellings, the layout problems could be solved by “a rethink of the dwelling mix” to provide more one and two-bedroom units on the southern half of the site, freeing up land for car parking and open space.